Kolkata, April 18 -- Observing that an accused is entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt in case of discrepancy between the evidence of the police witness and the public witness, Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of a grocery shop owner after 36 years.

The bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas was moved by the appellant (accused) who was convicted in 1989 under Essential Commodities Act. His grocery shop was raided in January 1987. Huge quantities of grocery articles were found available but the appellant allegedly failed to produce any receipt, stock register, sale register, stock and price board etc.

Essential commodities were seized and he was arrested. The counsel for the accused submitted that during inspection the appellant showed the stock price board to the officer. There are sharp discrepancies between the evidence of the witnesses as adduced by the prosecution. About 15-20 persons who assembled at the shop were not cited as witnesses. The seized commodities were left in the custody of the accused after preparation of the seizure list. The price board was correctly written as per physical stock but police said it won't be required. The appellant learnt the case was filed against him for non-availability of board.

The court observed that all the witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution are police personnel. There was discrepancy in witness evidence as to the number of people who had gathered at the spot.

The watcher constable with the raiding party failed to state the name of the driver and the jeep number by which they went to the shop. He also failed to say the names of owners of other shops which were situated in the vicinity of the shop concerned. The court noted that the only private witness in the case had prior enmity with the appellant. The investigating officer admitted he did not mention specific names of local witnesses in the case diary to prove that he conducted a raid at the shop.

"If there is any discrepancy between the evidence of the police witness and the public witness then the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt, court observed," the court observed.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.